Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python
От | James Pye |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python |
Дата | |
Msg-id | C6AA0F09-CF1A-4D44-B745-67B529D2341C@jwp.name обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python
Re: Python 3.0 does not work with PL/Python |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Apr 5, 2009, at 8:54 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Hm, did you read the link I cited? It's not so surprising that 3.0 > should have broken distutils, but what I found distressing is that > they > fixed distutils and then 3.0.1 broke it *again*. I stand by my > opinion > that Python 3 isn't stable yet. Yeah, actually. From some of the talk I've seen on python-dev, it sounds like 3.0.2 will be the last 3.0 release. 3.1 is in alpha, and ready to start cleaning things up, afaict. >> This means that users of PL/Python should not expect PL/Python to >> automatically work with 3.0. Supporting 3.0 will be a new feature. >> So it's OK to drop it from 8.4. > > One other thing that we'll have to seriously consider is whether we > should package python3 as a separate PL, so that people can keep using > their 2.x plpython functions without fear of breakage. I know that > the > Fedora guys are currently debating whether to treat it that way, and > I suppose other distros are having or will soon have the same > conversation. Six months from now, there will be some precedents and > some track record for us to look at in making that choice. I think this would be wise. Any thoughts on the acceptability of a complete rewrite for Python 3? I've been fiddling with a HEAD branch including the plpy code in a github repo. (nah it dunt compile yet: bitrot and been busy with a 3.x driver. ;)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: